On 19/08/2012 19:20, Florian Reisinger wrote:
__
Now, most of them have not answered --> Closed.... If they answer --> Reopen + check
If you look more closely, quite a few of these (I have no stats to back me up) were reports that Bjoern had reset in November to NEEDINFO when he did his first clean-up off the cuff, by resetting declared bugs to the NEEDINFO status. Since many of the OPs at the time were unaware what that meant, it is hardly surprising, IMO, that they then remained untreated/unresponded for so long. I, for one, fell foul of this "sleight of hand", and forgot the many issues that I had opened (under a different e-mail address at the time), that Florian so broad-handedly then disqualified.
My own personal take on this is that if you guys want to regularly schmeiss out bug reports that someone else has happened to sweepingly set as NEEDINFO, then I'm wasting my time here in QA. In my opinion, you have thrown the baby out with the bath water, but hey, just carry on like that and the world will be well. I know, I'll think I'll just wait 3 months and set a load of bugs to NEEDINFO, and then 3 months later strike them all out as INVALID - sounds fair ? No, didn't think so.
The reasoning that says "the stats go to show...", sorry, I don't buy it, it doesn't take into account the negative impact that the first bug clean sweep had on the OPs, and certainly not the second one. If I were an OP and saw what happened, I'd likely have one of the following reactions :
(a) ignore the disappointing approach from QA and leave LO to the hell it is getting itself into ;
(b) vociferously tell the LO project to p*ss off (we've had at least two or three of those already)
(c) maybe, just maybe, grit my teeth and reset the issue to re-opened, IF, and only IF, I give a damn.
The statistics you invoke as justification only take account of option (c), which is a false assumption of social behaviour.
Sorry for what appears to be a rant, but this whole sordid affair has left me with a very bitter taste in my mouth, it was bad enough the first time around, and now this comes as the icing on the cake. Well, if that's how the project wants to play, so be it, but I'm a hair's breadth away from walking away from it. What has been played out here is clearly an attempt to alleviate a perceived lack of control of increasing bug count within the project. It might not have been planned that way, but that is how it looks to the outside and casual bug reporter. And then we have the gall to say that we need more people for QA - come on, who are we kidding if we act like that ?
My motivation for staying is directly linked to the usage I have on a professional level of the software with regard to databases. If mine, and others, bug reports can be swept under the carpet and then be told that all we have to do is reactivate them if we're not happy, well, I'd be inclined to tell you all to take a running jump too. If I want hassle, I can go outside and pick a fight at the local pub, or for a quieter life, I can switch to competing software not a million miles away.
We are paying the ransom of our own success, and that ransom should avoid alienating those who made our software popular, the casual user with a problem.
OK, I've said enough. Alex _______________________________________________ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: [email protected] Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
